
We cooking tonighttt
Let's hope all these gains aren't erased tomorrow 🙏

Let's hope all these gains aren't erased tomorrow 🙏
>"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." - Archimedes
MSTR | STRC: Are buybacks a “lever” that Strategy can use to bring STRC back to par?
This is the question of the day in the MSTR space, and to conceptualize this, it may help to define what a “lever” is.
From a strictly mechanical standpoint, think of a lever is a tool or a system (like a seesaw) that includes a beam with an input force in the form of effort and output via a load. The purpose of a lever is to act as a force multiplier | amplifier that can move a heavier object or counteract an opposing force.
However, a functional lever also requires a fulcrum to act as the fixed pivot point around which the beam turns. Here the mechanical advantage comes from the relative lengths of the effort arm and load arm relative to a stable pivot. When you apply force at one end, you get predictable amplification at the other end. If the fulcrum itself is unstable, volatile, or is the dominant force in the system, any potential lever loses mechanical advantage and the operator must constantly adjust.
This brings us to the recent Strategy earnings call and Michael Saylor’s own words on the buyback program:
>“The big question mark is how extensive will the buyback be and how rapid will the buyback take place, and then what will be the exact open market execution strategy of the buyback? We are calibrating day by day and sometimes multiple times a day as we learn from the market.” - Michael Saylor
If a lever needs to be recalibrated multiple times a day, if its size, speed, and open-market execution strategy are continuously being learned from and constrained by the market, then its not operating as a controllable force multiplier. It's being used as an adaptive, reactive program, the exact opposite of a lever that provides a set, reliable mechanical advantage.
This is further complicated by the fact that the entire Digital Credit structure is designed around continuous issuance. The float does not exist within a classic fixed load (share count) model. Because the market knows that the outstanding share count is elastic; new issuance can (and is designed to) resume once price recovers above the $100 target. As a result, any scarcity created by buybacks is likely viewed as temporary. Participants therefore adjust the risk premium they require, further limiting the durable price impact, given a level of repurchase effort.
Traditional buybacks and classical lever systems assume both a fixed fulcrum and a fixed load. But here we actually have neither since the fulcrum (BTC price and volatility together with MSTR equity dynamics) is variable and dominant. The load itself is also variable and elastic designed to respond both to price and to the effort being applied. This combination is why any mechanical advantage is weak and transient, why initial statistical modeling attributes very low single digit price variance to the buybacks, and why constant day to day (sometimes multiple times a day) recalibration is required. This is clearly not a reliable force multiplier under the operator’s (Strategy) control.
Buybacks are still best understood as a capital structure management tool that allows the accretive retirement of claims and the reduction of future obligations. They are not a reliable price lever capable of independently forcing or holding STRC at par against the dominant fulcrum of the capital structure. Expecting them to function that way is not realistic.
A reversion to par, and the ability to maintain par with sustained independent demand, will occur when the fulcrum improves, meaning: [1] When BTC stabilizes or strengthens and [2] the risk premium attached to MSTR either diminishes or is offset by price appreciation. The buybacks, and to an extent the USD Reserve and dividend rate or frequency, can help at the margin on perceptions around payment risk, but they cannot override the dominant forces within the system.
If you have owned for 4-5 years or longer, did you sell off some/all before the pullback or riding it out for the long game for its eventual return to glory?
Anyone think this is the beginning of a death spiral for MSTR?
I see that the deal about Strategy rather than straight owning btc is the leverage it can provide, no?
Then why Strategy has started buying back STRC if the bet is btc is going up 30% yearly? I get that they buy it below 80 or similar, at extreme discount, but at current price levels, I feel like that they shouldn't reduce btc owned per share holder. Or the idea is timing the market now?
If anything, I would expect Strategy to push STRC above par by increasing dividends and issueing more stock to increase the leverage to buy more btc at current levels.
Disclaimer: I bought and sold btc, and briefly traded strc , but I dont own any mstr at the moment.
My flair will indicate that I am biased to be "bearish" on MSTR. Personally, I think I do my analysis without any pre-existing bias, just looking at the facts.
Here are the "facts" that have led me to my position (by "position", I mean opinion - I have gone both long and short on MSTR in the past with my "for fun" money, I have not owned either position since 2025):
In 2024 to early 2025, MSTR was trading at large multiples of mNAV. That meant that every new share issued gained fiat that MSTR could use to purchase bitcoin for previous shareholders. i.e. if a new share was bought at 2x mNAV, and all of that money went to buy bitcoin, 50% of the fiat price of the share would go to the new shareholder, and the rest of the 50% would technically go to buy bitcoin to increase the BPS of previous shareholders. The idea that that would keep happening, so long as mNAV was above 1 by a significant amount, was incentive for new shareholders to buy and hold so that new investors would buy them more bitcoin. However, once mNAV dropped near 1, that perpetual motion machine broke. It's NOT impossible that it gets going again, but the thought that it could be perpetual forever has taken a hit, in my opinion.
In early 2026, there was a grand resurgence, at least partially responsible for bitcoin's $80k+ rebound, fueled by STRC issuance. That provided a new path, irrespective of the mNAV flywheel, to produce BTC yield. Many people thought that it was the reality of the 11-12% dividend catching up to them that stopped that momentum. However there's another important (albeit related) factor at play: the momentum of STRC bitcoin yield is limited by its inability to produce quick returns when its price is at par. And the ONLY way for MSTR to turn it into bitcoin yield is WHEN the price is at par. Thus it can only ever be a slow burn, blunting the bitcoin yield with divident obligations, and any substantial bitcoin momentum gained by it will have to be paid for later (as we've seen in July/August with bitcoin sales and dilution, with minimal btc purchases despite the dilution).
In the past few months Saylor has raised BILLIONS of dollars - almost completely offsetting the raise of capital through STRC that had MSTR investors so excited back in April. He has done it by selling some BTC, but mostly by selling new MSTR shares without using the proceeds to buy bitcoin. Both those mechanisms hurt MSTR shareholders, to whom he's really never demonstrated benevolence. In my view, he seems to view them as means to an end, to keep his company afloat. He is not operating to try and maximize MSTR value, and the stock price reflects that. If you go back to this sub's late 2024-early 2025 post history, you'd be called bearish for suggesting a sub-1000 price target for 2026. But the mood now has shifted to being fairly complacent with a price hovering around $100. Saylor has been banking on shareholders using sunk cost fallacy and other coping mechanisms to continue buying at these prices.
I absolutely do not see MSTR going to 0 any time within the next 5-8 years. But I also don't see any sustained price action above $130 or so at best. Based on all the factors explained above, I see this as a situation analogous to GameStop, where an initial, almost unprecedented rise in price lured people in with the promise of financial freedom, but now there will be a long tail of a slow burn.
Again, I have no open position in MSTR or the preferreds, I don't plan to either than maybe a day of fun in either direction (where I'll probably lose money by guessing wrong anyway), I just find unique finance stories such as this interesting to follow and engage with.
Happy to hear opposing thoughts.
What are your thoughts on the question and management’s response? As always, let’s keep it civil.
Note: This is my assessment and opinion. I place high probability on this coming to pass, but there's always a chance that it does not.
While Strategy management is running around like a headless chicken and changing strategies like one changes underwear, I believe $MSTR is lining up for another leg down.
Simply because Strategy's fortunes are tied to those of Bitcoin at the hip, and Bitcoin is showing signs of keeling over:
Left: Flags on Bitcoin | Right: Liquidity (GLI Indicator on tV)
Both the technicals and liquidity suggest it's time for Bitcoin's next leg down. Perhaps the final leg down, before it starts bottoming. (Yes, these measures are reliable; you can see track record of this here on X.)
Here's a sensitivity table based on BTC price and mNav, given the current balance sheet:
MSTR price sensitivity table (my calculations)
(The negative numbers are mathematical - at that point, MSTR starts being priced like an option.)
Based ON Bitcoin's expected trajectory, I expect MSTR to hit $40ish in the next 8-12 weeks.
Ironically, the saving grace is the $4.65B in USD reserves. Without it, MSTR would be in the teens if Bitcoin fell more than half. You can see that effect here:
Strategy balance sheet at current BTC price and BTC @ $12K (my calculations)
What invalidates this? Bitcoin finding a bottom sooner, and even starting to move up. Which will happen when Treasury yields fall, and there is a major liquidity pump. Hard to see that without a recession, and there are few signs of that.
Overall, I feel pretty comfortable with this prognosis. At least directionally. Will be realizing this with options and/or LETFs.
They are back with a fresh index-exclusion threat, with the current proposal being broader than the old “Digital Asset Treasury” company attack from last year.
MSCI is now consulting on whether “non-operating companies” should be eligible for its indexes. Results are expected on or before October 16, and changes would be implemented in the November 2026 Index Review.
Focusing on what this means for Strategy:
Through 08-07-2026 MSTR has traded ~$419.75B YTD with ~$2.80B average daily volume, ~$13.12B average weekly volume and ~$52.47B average monthly volume.
If we use the old JPMorgan MSCI outflow estimate of $2.8B, that equals about 1 average trading day, ~21% of an average week, ~5% of an average month and less than 1% of the YTD volume. This is not nothing, but its certainly not going to cause a terminal liquidity event either.
As before, my read on MSCI exclusion is that it would matter most as a structural and narrative event due to its impact on passive ownership, capital-market perception, etc. It may even impact the way indexes classify Bitcoin Treasury Companies. That said, Strategy is big enough and has robust enough positioning around it to survive a removal relatively unscathed.
TL/DR: this new MSCI risk is real, no decision has been made, and notions of market impact should be assessed against actual MSTR trading volume and liquidity. There is no need for concern, ignore any new FUD that (we know) is coming
Get ready for an influx of new "fly-bys" coming here with nonsense they picked up from articles pushing an agenda...
It's highly likely this ramps up over the weekend or next week based on the growing narrative I see in the news and on social media. On a generally quiet YT channel yesterday about Strategy that gets very view views, I saw a sudden spike in upvotes on a single comment that said something like, "I've trusted Saylor, but my trust in him has run out."
It had a dozen comments all posted within a 5 min window below it (the algos aren't even trying to hide the coordination I guess) basically raising all the typical FUD: talking about allegations from 30 years ago, confusing what Prefs are, and suggesting the company doesn't produce anything because Bitcoin isn't a thing.
Get ready for it! Grab your popcorn. 🍿
I’d be interested to know the strongest reasons that convinced you 100% to purchase Strategy. Thanks! 😊